Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, May 12, 1993 TAG: 9305120052
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: EURE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
The bill, a pet issue for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Mary Sue Terry and a major goal of groups fighting drunken driving for three years, finally passed this year. It also was signed by the governor.
For most legislation, that's enough to become law. But the so-called administrative revocation bill became the victim of what is essentially an unintended pocket veto.
Each side is blaming the other for killing the bill, which the Department of Motor Vehicles estimates would have saved 30 to 50 lives a year.
A "frustrated, angry and dismayed" Sen. Joseph Gartlan Jr., D-Fairfax County, the bill's sponsor, said Wilder used a "half-baked principle to kill a measure that his own administration says would save lives."
"The governor didn't want to veto this bill," Wilder spokesman Glenn Davidson insisted.
In fact, last week, Wilder signed a copy of the original bill, as passed by the assembly in February. On Monday, though, that copy was returned to him by House Clerk Bruce Jamerson, who said his signature was no good.
The bill is dead, Jamerson said Tuesday. Because he is the official who sends bills passed by the legislature to the printer, he has the last word - unless a judge decides otherwise.
At issue is a complex constitutional struggle that has been under way between the governor and assembly for two years, essentially over who has the final authority over amending legislation.
Wilder sent the administrative revocation bill back to the legislature at its veto session last month, asking for 10 technical amendments. The assembly approved four.
But Wilder - backed by an opinion this spring from Attorney General Steven Rosenthal - argues that the legislature can't accept only some gubernatorial amendments. It's all or nothing.
Wilder felt so strongly about the bill that he was willing to sign it with none of his amendments after the veto session, Davidson said.
The problem was, Wilder no longer had the original document, signed by both the speaker of the House and president of the Senate.
It stayed with Jamerson, who said Wilder passed up his chance to sign that version when he recommended the amendments.
"That bill was not before the governor," Jamerson said Tuesday.
He maintains that Wilder had only the option of signing the measure with the four approved amendments or vetoing it.
Davidson said the legislature is in effect carving out its own veto power with the action.
The idea of giving the governor power to suggest amendments "was intended to give the governor another choice besides signing or vetoing," Gartlan retorted.
"This governor has abused this power more than any other, although he is not the first."
The conflict mirrors a 1991 fight over 86 Wilder amendments to the state budget. The Senate approved only a handful, while the House backed them all.
The legislature then decided that only the amendments approved by both houses would be included in the bill sent to Wilder for signing.
He ignored that and signed the original bill. The only way to settle the issue, all parties agreed, would be in court.
Both Gartlan and Davidson said they think a suit unlikely.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
by CNB